Reformed theology holds as a central aspect of its theological system the Covenant ideas surrounding the inclusion of infants and family in the covenant of grace. If Waldron is redefining this to suit Baptistic ideas, then he has removed himself from the realm of classic Reformed Theology, though he may believe in the sovereignty of God.
He seems to make this a central issue of being a Reformer, and I have not heard that before. Warfield, OTOH, I thought was more charitable, and I really liked the way he framed the issue:
The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism.
I think this is perfectly fair, and was generally how I was approaching the issue. When is it proper, etc.? He goes on to say that the decision to baptize is made on a presumption, and I nod my head in agreement. Then, he argues that a profession of faith is insufficient to be a qualifier because people can be insincere, lie, or whatever. My problem with that is that the Bible gives us plenty of examples where it IS sufficient as a qualifier.
Then he says "Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise." I thought that sounded reasonable and that maybe this comes down to the interpretation of that promise. It appears that Warfield was referring to Acts 2:38-39. I must admit that I was amused as he ripped Strong for only half-quoting, when he himself only gave it a 3/4 quote, leaving out something I think is important. :) Here it is:
Acts 2:38-39 : 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call."
My issue with this is that we KNOW that being a lineal child of a Jew was no guarantee of salvation at all. Only believers are children of God. It seems to me that the last clause is a summary of what he was saying, that the promise is only for those whom God will call, not necessarily for my particular child. I suppose I see "your children" in the generic, and not in the specific. I read it as "children in faith" rather than all biological children. The promise is clearly not for children who turn out to be reprobate.
Later, I was pleased to see that Warfield recognized my point:
And we can believe that the Church includes the minor children of its members for whom they must as parents act, without believing that it is thereby made a hereditary body.
However, he doesn't really explain this much other than to say that since parents are responsible for their children, therefore, they can be representatives and if the parents are saved, then the children are saved. To me, that is a monster leap which I didn't comprehend him explaining, other than the relation to Acts 2.
On the flip side, I did wind up agreeing with many of Warfield's criticisms of Strong. I think Strong claimed too much, for example his claim that since infant baptism is not clearly set forth in the Bible means it couldn't have happened. I don't think that's right.
Overall, I think Warfield was very even-handed in his approach, and I learned a great deal. Now I think I have a reasonable understanding of what the ideas are. Thanks again for showing it to me. :)
Warfield seems to follow your quote from Calvin, but the very last part of the Calvin quote confused me:
Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.
That don't look right. :) ............. But then, after thinking for a minute I remembered Warfield and this may be a perfect example of the presumption that he was talking about. If so, at the very least I think I have a much better idea of how to read the views of (Reformed) paedobaptists. It appears to all go back to the promise. If that's true, then this is exactly what I wanted to know. :)
That's why non-Baptist Reformed believers have a difficult time reconciling a true Reformed understanding with the Baptist insistence that an adult must make a public declaration before they are somehow admitted into God's family.